The end of fact-checking

By BEN SMITH

08/17/2011 08:28 PM EDT

The new professional "fact-checking" class is, at its best, doing good, regular journalism under the pseudo-scientific banner, complete with made-up measurements.

At their worst, they're doing opinion journalism under pseudo-scientific banners, something that's really corrosive to actual journalism, which if it's any good is about reported fact in the first place.

Frankly, we are dubious that Biden actually said this. And if he did, he was simply echoing what another speaker said, in a private conversation, as opposed to making a public statement.

Wait a second. Either he said it, or he didn't. That's the fact to check here. The way to check it is to report it out, not to attack the people who did report it out and label their reporting "dubious" based on nothing more than instinct and the questionable and utterly self-interested word of politicians and their staffers.

After hearing from the first source, the two POLITICO reporters on the story, Jonathan Allen and John Bresnahan, quickly confirmed Biden’s words with three other sources who were in the same room. They also contacted a fifth source, who confirmed the basic reporting. The original tip came in at about 1 p.m. Aug. 1, and POLITICO spent the next few hours in contact with the vice president’s office, which was aware of what the story was going to say and had been given several hours to respond by the time the story posted at 4 p.m.

That's what you call fact-checking.

And it's why Biden's office issued a non-denial denial, and nobody in House leadership questioned the report -- until it became a cause celebre on the right, at which point Biden's memory miraculously cleared right up.